This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

She specifically stated his knife in his possesion at the time was legal.

It was stated that that was not probable cause.

Do you have independent sources to support these statements that how the knife was being carried complied with city ordinances and that running from the police is not probable cause to detain and attempt to identify an individual?

The proscecutor is no more an independent source than the defense attorney.

Originally Posted by mac

You do need probable cause to pursue and arrest. You may not need it to question, but refusal to answer questions is not probable cause.

So it is possible that the police had lawful authority to detain Gray in an attempt to identify him. In Gray's case (18 prior arrests with the distinct possibility of being on probation or parole), such a detention could well yield lawful grounds to arrest him for either a criminal offense (failue to ID), or for administrative violations of his probation / parole status*.

* providing that one can be arrested for adminstrative violations of probation / parole. I am not certain, but my bet is that one can be. How often it happens, or if the police int his case made a formal conclusion of administrative violations, may be another matter.

Originally Posted by mac

You have every right to not answer a police officers questions.

Failure to ID is a criminal offense. Likewise, people on probation or parole might not enjoy the full right of refusal to answer other questions. For example, I know that some California parolees are "fourth amendment waiver" parolees and have signed an agreement waiving 4th amendment rights.

You do need probable cause to pursue and arrest. You may not need it to question, but refusal to answer questions is not probable cause. You have every right to not answer a police officers questions.

You only need probable cause to arrest, not pursue. They also would have needed probable cause to search unless they were given permission. In this case, however, the knife they found was partially visible.

So your definition of "blind partisanship" is "Democrats." Figures, sadly. Sadly, the "party of personal freedom" and the people who are always saying we need guns to defend our freedom are totally fine with citizens being killed by police.

Instead of "black lives matter," how about "Citizens' lives matter?" Sadly, you'd be against that too. Unless of course, a Republican started it.

I gave you some pretty specific examples of what blind partisanship that were relevant to this issue.

Which actions did Mr. Gray take that put his live in danger? I mean, if you can make that argument, then I can simply turn it around and make the same argument.....If the police had simply rendered/ called for medical attention, Mr. Gray would most likely still be alive and 6 police wouldn't be facing some pretty serious charges.

While you have the ability to make such a argument, it is not one supported by the known evidence.
The Officers rendered assistance when they knew he needed it.

To your initial question.
The evidence is

it was a smooth ride.
still that he was banging his head.
that he was okay but was creating a ruckus so they then shackled his legs and left him laying facing forward.
He of his own volition turned himself around and got up, his head rammed against a bolt at the rear and then falling causing damage to his voice box.

The fact that it was a smooth ride pretty much is an indication that his purposely banging his head is the proximate cause of his injury.

Originally Posted by csbrown28

Actually contributing to the death of a person via carelessness, either by accident or intentional is, in fact, against the law.

It may be found that there wasn't a meaningful and effective notification of the supposed new policy.

The supposed new rules are no where to be found.
Do you have a link to them?

Here are the only ones (old) I could find.

-- Ensure medical treatment for a prisoner is obtained, when necessary, at the nearest emergency medical facility

>The arrestee is secured with seat/restraint belts provided. This procedure should be evaluated on an individual basis so not to place oneself in any danger

To suggest an act of not restraining him for purpose of Officer safety somehow raises to the level of irresponsibility or negligence in his death when it was okay to do so supposedly just three days prior, is absurd.

Originally Posted by csbrown28

Yes a drug deal suspiciously short of drugs....hmmmmm

D'oh! Both suspects fled.
Tell me you are not going to pretend that that is an indication that they were up to no good.
Not finding what they exchanged does not mean that it was not seen.
Besides the possibility of it being tossed, for all you know it was ingested.

Originally Posted by csbrown28

Again, the criminal part isn't that they violated policy, it's that someone allegedly has died for failure to implement the policy.

It does not raise to the level of of criminal culpability.

Especially as it wasn't policy three days earlier.

If it is found that there wasn't a meaningful and effective notification of the supposed new policy, the old standards will be what was in effect.

Apparently there is an anonymous cop that is reporting that Freddy Grey was an informant, and the pursuit and arrest was a cover up to protect his "street cred". That may explain why he was detained for no good reason...and it may mean his death was a freak accident in no-way intended by the involved officers. Be interseting to see how that part, if at all credible, plays out. It could also be an attempt for the cops to get their brethren off the murder/manslaughter charges, though...

Yes. The videos I posted earlier are there for review.

Originally Posted by Phys251

Looks like you're going on a me-against-the-world crusade. Best of luck, brother!

The folks replying indicates that is not true.
Dershowitz position indicates that is not true.
The FOP's position indicates that is not true.
Etc ...
So why are you speaking untruths?
Never mind, I know.

The folks replying indicates that is not true.
Dershowitz position indicates that is not true.
The FOP's position indicates that is not true.
Etc ...
So why are you speaking untruths?
Never mind, I know.

Why do you feel the need to ratchet up the rhetoric so quickly? I wait for all the evidence to come in, not just the alleged components of evidence that suits your narrow views.

Originally Posted by Lord of Planar

I don't claim to be an expert, but I probably know more than everyone in this forum debating the topic.

oh goody. now when the evidence becomes clear(see ferguson) and the officers get off we can all witness an even BIGGER race riot in Baltimore. and the best part is it will all be blamed on ME, the "angry white male".

good times

You do know that 3 of the officers charged were black right? It's not so much about the race of the cops as how the cops handled this and several situations in the past was part of a larger overall problem in the city.

"We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy." -Reagan

You do know that 3 of the officers charged were black right? It's not so much about the race of the cops as how the cops handled this and several situations in the past was part of a larger overall problem in the city.

Well good. At least finally the media is reporting on black on black violence then.